This is a post I have been thinking about making for a while. I occassionally read an issue of Aaron's run and it has good ideas and starts to pull me in only for something to jolt me out of it. They are several issues I have with his writing that strike me as flaws, but I admit I could be wrong or may have missed something in an interview or issue.

I am trying to avoid any discussions of politics, SJW, or anything else of that and stick only to the writing though I realize that may be difficult.

Problems:

1. The Unfortunate Implications of the Reason Thor is Unworthy - The reason given is all gods everywhere are petty, a-holes unworthy of the worship mortals give him. So, Aaron is saying that the billion upon billions of diverse gods across the universe are all the same regardless of creed, pantheon, aspect, gender, skin tone, etc. Not a pantheon or type of god, but all of them. And taken to a logical extreme the universe and mortals would be better off without all of them. Anyone else bothered by that statement? Isn’t that the same as saying that all mortals are evil and the universe would be better off without them based on a few races like the Skrulls and Kree? The idea that mortals are superior lifeforms to the gods instead of at least some idea of equality?

2. The Source of the Claim - Aaron’s source is Gorr and Nick Fury aka a sadistic, hypocritical madman and a known liar and manipulator who had every reason to try and deceive Thor. Also, Watchers are not all-knowing. That is why they share information. Why should the comic reader or Thor believe anything they say? If they cannot be believed then doesn’t that undermine his entire message about them? Why does he not address the elephant in the room that proves him wrong that is Thor, Hercules, Perun, Asgardians in general, the Canadian gods, etc?

3. The Heavy Use of Retcons and Characterizations- I understand why a writer sometimes needs to retcon things. There is a lot of history to keep track of and some of it is unimportant or so minor it does not matter much. But if you have to make major retcon after retcon and radically change characterizations it can throw off long-time readers though admittedly not new ones. If you have to force characters to fit a story like trying to force a square into a round hole might it be a writer is telling the wrong story? Also, I find it lazy since the writer cannot find a way to make his story fit so he changes whatever inconveniences him.

4. The Extremely One-Sided/One-Dimensional Arguments Aaron is using - I understand why a writer might sometimes portray only one side of an argument as an extreme. Due to time constraints or audience it gets the writers point across quickly. Aaron does not have either of those excuses. Despite that he has repeatedly depicted the gods as one-dimensional characterizes without bothering to try and explore WHY THEY ARE THAT WAY. I find this to be lazy since it is a short cut. Aaron does not have to present an argument on why Jane is correct. All he has done is show why the gods are wrong. It forces the reader to agree with Jane-Thor because the gods are so horrible no one in their right mind would side with them.

5. What are Jason’s ideal gods supposed to be like? - The story has repeatedly gotten on the gods not only for mistreating their worshippers but for ignoring them as well. As far as I can tell, Aaron thinks the gods should take a heavy-handed approach to mortals and essentially be their babysitters since even a god who protects them and inspires them is considered unworthy. This idea is enabling and other stories have already gone into why this is a bad idea. So what is Aaron trying to say? What are his ideal gods?

6. Humans Are Superior - I can only assume this is what Aaron is going for based on his biased depiction. It is a popular enough trope to show humans as being better at least morally than the Other. I don’t like it because the radically way it says humans are morally superior given the well-known history in Marvel that shows humanity as bad as if not worse than the gods. If Jane is proud to be human then why shouldn’t Thor be proud to be a god?

7. The Glorification of Suffering/Martyrdom - Jane is willing to use a magic hammer yet unwilling to take a magical cure claiming it always has a price. One, this is hypocritical. Two, This is untrue (at least before Aaron) because we have seen entire societies based on magic and other magic uses regularly use it without any backslash. Aaron has made a big deal about Jane’s sacrifice and I realize it is meant to give her character depth and prove why she is worthy. But Thor already is willing to sacrifice his life for mortals. If having a frail body is what makes one more worthy than another and rejecting a cure that is a glorification of suffering and I want nothing to do with it.

8. Finally, what is the message Aaron is ultimately trying to tell? What is it that makes one worthy? - Exploring worthiness is supposed to be what Aaron’s run is about and Foster embodies what Aaron thinks it means to be worthy. Yet Jane is doing nothing different than what Thor did when he was wielding Mjolnir. So what makes her better than him? Being mortal? Humans Are Superior?

Thoughts? Ideas? Have I missed anything?

I agree completely. Aaron’s run is quite confusing. He’s saying that Thor is unworthy because he’s a god and all gods are unworthy, but doesn’t that kind of make Mjölnir racist since it judges an entire race as unworthy? Didn’t the Builders say the same thing about humans? Shouldn’t Thor’s heroic actions make him the exception? Aaron reminds me of the mutant haters in the Marvel Universe. Because of a few bad eggs of one powerful species, he declares them evil and detrimental to society. Those mutant haters believed that humans were the perfect species and chose the Sentinels to fight for them in the war for domination. Aaron chose Jane Foster as his champion.